On 18 Jul 2013, at 11:29, Phil Mayers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17/07/13 21:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 17/07/2013 19:13, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote: >> ... >> >>> Let me ask one thing... a couple of years ago, when I read the >>> specification of Teredo, I was quite impressed by the details (If >>> you accept the premise that you have to work around being jailed >>> behind an IPv4 NAT) put into the protocol. One detail was that it >>> is supposed to be lowest priority and so go automatically away >>> (from the client end) as soon as some configued IPv6 is available >>> on the link. >>> >>> Isn't that how it's implemented? >> >> Yes, but the result is that the host tries to use Teredo preferentially >> even if the IPv4 path is better; and if the Teredo path is broken > > That is the opposite of how it's supposed to work. Teredo addresses should be > de-pref'd below everything else, and would thus only be used for connection > to IPv6-only hosts if the host lacked other IPv6 connectivity. > > As someone else has pointed out, maybe it gets used for IPv6 literals, but > not hostnames - the RFC 3484 table on windows ensures this. Indeed; that's how it *should* be. Tim
